Aussie Pro Rugby
-
Asked specifically whether a social media clause was included, Castle said there were other agreements in place.
"(There was no clause) within the contract but there was a number of documented meetings that were put in writing, both verbally and in writing, to Israel about our expectations," she said.
"Yes, he agreed to them."
I'm not sure Raelene understands contracts.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'm not sure Raelene understands contracts.
I'd imagine there are requirements an employer must fulfill under the Fair Work Act before they can terminate an employee.
So in his numerous briefings, warnings etc. they are covering themselves under the law if they then decide to sack him.
My understanding is there isn't a specific clause in his contract, but he is required to adhere to the RA Inclusion Policy.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'm not sure Raelene understands contracts.
I'd imagine there are requirements an employer must fulfill under the Fair Work Act before they can terminate an employee.
So in his numerous briefings, warnings etc. they are covering themselves under the law if they then decide to sack him.
My understanding is there isn't a specific clause in his contract, but he is required to adhere to the RA Inclusion Policy.
@barbarian yeah I expect if Aus is anything like NZ, the rights of employees are well protected and employers need to do everything by the book, cant just sack someone cos they piss you off anymore.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'm not sure Raelene understands contracts.
I'd imagine there are requirements an employer must fulfill under the Fair Work Act before they can terminate an employee.
So in his numerous briefings, warnings etc. they are covering themselves under the law if they then decide to sack him.
My understanding is there isn't a specific clause in his contract, but he is required to adhere to the RA Inclusion Policy.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'd imagine there are requirements an employer must fulfill under the Fair Work Act before they can terminate an employee.
So in his numerous briefings, warnings etc. they are covering themselves under the law if they then decide to sack him.
My understanding is there isn't a specific clause in his contract, but he is required to adhere to the RA Inclusion Policy.If you're required to adhere to policies, that's mentioned in your contract. Or it's a variation. One that requires the same consideration.
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'd imagine there are requirements an employer must fulfill under the Fair Work Act before they can terminate an employee.
So in his numerous briefings, warnings etc. they are covering themselves under the law if they then decide to sack him.
My understanding is there isn't a specific clause in his contract, but he is required to adhere to the RA Inclusion Policy.If you're required to adhere to policies, that's mentioned in your contract. Or it's a variation. One that requires the same consideration.
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
We're not firing you because you're gay. We're just firing you because you're hanging out with flamboyantly gay people, and our sponsor's don't like it.
We're not firing you because you're in a union. Just because you ignored our reasonable requests not to protest in your own time. Sorry, our sponsor's are capitalists and don't like it. We don't tolerate communists here.
There are real limitations to what you can do to your employees outside work time. Courts may take a dim view of trying to limit religious (or political) speech, even if it is offensive.
-
that he would refrain from posting in a disrespectful way after a similar incident almost a year ago.
If there is no written clause and the gist of the 'agreement' is this then he should be in the clear. It's only peoples interpretation of intention that is causing outrage. His intent could very well be that he loves gays (and everyone else he mentioned) so much that he wants to help them avoid hell, in his mind not warning people would be what is disrespectful.
-
that he would refrain from posting in a disrespectful way after a similar incident almost a year ago.
If there is no written clause and the gist of the 'agreement' is this then he should be in the clear. It's only peoples interpretation of intention that is causing outrage. His intent could very well be that he loves gays (and everyone else he mentioned) so much that he wants to help them avoid hell, in his mind not warning people would be what is disrespectful.
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
-
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Agreed. It presupposes the outcome of the process they're yet to have. For an organisation swimming with lawyers, they seem bereft of good counsel.
-
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid. -
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
No, the other way around. You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't (by law or by agreement - it doesn't have to be a written contract. Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
No, the other way around. You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't (by law or by agreement - it doesn't have to be a written contract. Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
The quote is 'verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on'.
And again - contract clauses that are manifestly unfair or breach human rights may be unenforceable. Also, there may not even be a contact clause ... which would be an interesting omission on the part of RA
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
No, the other way around. You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't (by law or by agreement - it doesn't have to be a written contract. Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't
I just want you to read that to yourself, slowly.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
@antipodean you not seen Chieka front media before?
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
Wouldn't make much difference to Krusty if he did. Wouldn't want to be a door in his house at the moment.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't
I just want you to read that to yourself, slowly.
-
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Why? Surely the same as Cheika saying he won't pick a player because he isn't a great defender. The coach can do whatever he wants, and it has nothing to do with Israel's contractual status.
Plus RA have already said point blank they intend to tear up his contract. It's not like Cheika's comments aren't in line with that stated intention.
Having Cheika and Hooper front the media was a savvy move on RA's part, to dispel any story about a split between RA and the players or coaches. Now they look united and strong, in the eyes of the public at very least.
